# How Bush will "steal" the 2004 election **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 23, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683 "2004-09-23T15:24:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![byomtoob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@byomtoob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/byomtoob)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/1 "2004-09-23T15:24:17Z")
A prediction: [ul] [li] Another VERY close election[/li][li] The Colorado referendum, which allocates Colorado’s electoral vote based on popular vote, passes[/li][li] If all of the CO’s electoral votes go to the state winner (Bush), he wins, but if they’re allocated, Kerry wins[/ul][/li] [Electoral-Vote.com](http://www.electoral-vote.com) lays out this scenario on their 9/23 page. Turns out there’s a couple of problems with the Colorado thing: [ul][li]First the US Constitution: [/li] > [@](#): > > Article II. > Section 1 > The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: > > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the **Legislature** thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. This could be interpreted to mean that the method may not be determined by referendum, only by the legislature. [li]Second the FEC may step in–although I have no cite – they may have restrictions on when states must finalize their method of selecting electors relative to the election (I’ve seen that there is a rule that this must be done no less than 6 days before the election, but again, no cite[/ul][/li] So, once again, we end up in court. Ultimately the Supreme Court. The “republican” Supreme Court citing either the constitution or the FEC, awards Colorado’s electoral vote to Bush. Bottom line, just like in 2000, its a very close election that was decided on a technicality. \*Either \* way it gets decided is a technicality. Cries of election stealing ring out on the message boards and throughout the land!! No hilarity ensues. For the record, I support Bush – but there’s no way I would want him to win like this, especially after 2000. ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/2 "2004-09-23T16:01:35Z")
Murky threats start to emerge three or four days before the election. Homeland security issues an advisory. Increased chatter in the terrorist network. Possible al Qaeda plans to attack polling places, particularly in Philadelphia, Miami, and other heavily Democratic urban areas located in swing states. ---
**Author:** ![jk1245](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/49beb7/32.png) [@jk1245](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jk1245)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/3 "2004-09-23T16:25:23Z")
Much as I distrust Bush and moreso his cronies, I am getting the sinking feeling that he won’t have to steal it at all. The electoral [vote.com](http://vote.com) site has shown him to be pulling away lately (distressingly, my own home of Wisconsin is now in the “strong Bush” camp). Granted, that many of the states “leads” are probably too close to call for sure, but still. No need to steal it if you somehow manage to win outright. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/4 "2004-09-23T16:30:20Z")
Not to go to much into the whole Colorado scenario since it was done in a Pit thread not too long ago, and trying not to think about living in a “strong Bush” state (if there is a god, and it allows Bush to win for real this time, please let his coattails not be long enough to pull Russ Feingold’s opponent along for the ride): The reason the apportionment backers targeted Colorado is because there is a body of case law in that state which loosely defines the people of the state acting by referendum as part of the “legislature.” Supporters feel that this case law, should the initiative pass, will shield the initiative from the courts. I think they’re wrong, and even if the courts do allow the apportionment I don’t think they’ll allow it to affect the 2004 electoral award. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/5 "2004-09-23T16:55:37Z")
> [@byomtoob](#): > > This could be interpreted to mean that the method may not be determined by referendum, only by the legislature. But if the legislature allows for laws to be passed via the referrendum method, wouldn’t that then qualify as “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct?” Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/6 "2004-09-23T17:15:04Z")
> [@jk1245](#): > > The electoral [vote.com](http://vote.com) site has shown him to be pulling away lately (distressingly, my own home of Wisconsin is now in the “strong Bush” camp). From the site: > [@](#): > > Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 255 Bush 273 Maryland, with ten votes, is considered “exactly tied,” so its votes aren’t counted in the above totals. Considering 270 are needed to win, I’m not so sure the GOP is “pulling away.” I’m disquieted by any talk of either side “stealing the election.” But I’ll say this: the incidents of the 2000 election are still resonating with a lot of people, and I fear that any such repeat will cause serious damage to the credibility of the electoral process. I would rather see “my side” lose by a measurable margin than win a disputed race. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/7 "2004-09-23T17:28:42Z")
Wait, Bush is going to steal the election? I thought that the tinfoil hat brigade was still convinced that Bush is going to withhold elections due to “military crisis”, so he can become our dark overlord…makes you wonder how they justify his spending money on a campaign for an election he won’t allow held, though. ---
**Author:** ![35340](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/8baadc/32.png) [@35340](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/35340)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/8 "2004-09-23T17:45:11Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > I would rather see “my side” lose by a measurable margin than win a disputed race. Yep. ---
**Author:** ![byomtoob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@byomtoob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/byomtoob)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/9 "2004-09-23T20:17:02Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > But if the legislature allows for laws to be passed via the referrendum method, wouldn’t that then qualify as “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct?” > > Zev Steinhardt Loosely, yes. But it could very well be argued that unless the legislature specifically allowed for determination of electors to be done by referendum, than they specifically haven’t “directed” anything. The constitution requires the legislature to do it, it doesn’t give them an option to delegate it. Your statement will obviously be the argument for it, but I expect Rehnquist et all will toss it like a frisbee. My big concern is leaving a bad taste in the citizenry’s mouth about the “Great Experiment”. Again, 2000 was decided based on a technicality, regardless of which way it went. I really, really hope 2004 isn’t the same. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/10 "2004-09-23T22:24:42Z")
You’d think that Florida would want to lose their “electile dysfunction” tag, but various reports whisper deja vu. [ul] [li]Newspapers had to file a Freedom Of Information Act claim to obtain a list of voters purged because they had the same name as a felon (felons can’t vote in FL.) The list had lots of black voters, many of which were not felons, but very few Hispanics. Gov. Bush ordered a new list.[/li][li]Gov. Bush says the new touch-screen voting machines are safe and reliable. A mailing to Republicans, though, advised absentee voting because the machines might have some problems.[/li][li]Flyers distributed in poor black neighborhoods advise voters they should be sure their rent, utilities, and loan payments were up to date on election day. The last line urged everybody to vote on November 3rd, the day after the election.[/li][li]State and federal cops have been interviewing elderly black voters “to find voter fraud.”[/li][/ul] It will be interesting. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bush-will-steal-the-2004-election/265683/11 "2004-09-23T23:02:48Z")
> [@byomtoob](#): > > For the record, I support Bush – but there’s no way I would want him to win like this, especially after 2000. My own opinion: I do not support Bush, and will not be voting for him. However, should it come down to Colorado’s votes, and the Supremes determine that the change in apportionment of electoral votes is not Constitutional, I will accept this as a valid election. If Colorado wants to change the way it votes, they can do so through Constitutional means, and **before** a major election so that everyone will know the stakes of how their vote will actually work.